ILNews

Opinions June 30, 2014

June 30, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinions were issued Friday after IL deadline.

Keion Gaddie v. State of Indiana
49S02-1312-CR-789.
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, holding that I.C. 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3), the statute defining the offense of resisting law enforcement by fleeing after being ordered to stop, must be construed to require that a law enforcement officer’s order to stop be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. On that basis, there was insufficient evidence against Gaddie to support the conviction.

Donald Murdock v. State of Indiana
48S02-1406-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, holding the evidence and reasonable inferences established Murdock knowingly or intentionally fled from a law enforcement officer’s order to stop that was based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Dexter Berry v. State of Indiana
49S04-1406-CR-416
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to accept or reject the plea agreement as written. Rules that the court lacked the authority under terms of the plea agreement to impose on the defendant one year of work release as a condition of probation following his 10-year sentence. The trial court was allowed to order probation after the defendant served his sentence but it could not impose punitive conditions like restrictive placement.

Tin Thang v. State of Indiana
49S04-1402-CR-72
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Finds based on the evidence the trial court could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had been intoxicated in a public place while endangering the life of himself or others. Justices David and Rucker dissent.
   
June 30
Indiana Court of Appeals

Dennis Samples v. Steve Wilson and Donald & Ingrid Bannon, husband and wife, and Ronald & Edna Bannon, husband and wife
60A01-1312-PL-518
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct error in judgment in favor of defendants, holding that Dennis Samples had not proven the court erred in finding the expansion of a dam on neighboring property encroached on his land or was a nuisance.

Anissa L. Tyler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1309-PC-428
Post conviction. Reverses denial of post-conviction relief; vacates convictions of murder and Class A felony aiding, inducing or causing robbery; and remands for retrial, finding the court erred in determining that Tyler received effective assistance of counsel.

Doaa I. Ebrahim v. Essam Otefi (NFP)
76A03-1309-DR-368
Domestic. Affirms denial of Ebrahim’s motion for relief from judgment from the trial court’s dissolution of marriage decree.

Darcel Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1311-CR-578
Criminal. Affirms placement split between Department of Correction and work release on an eight-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Cheryl Rodriguez v. Sourthern Dunes Golf, LLC (NFP)
49A02-1307-PL-639
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Southern Dunes.

Bernard A. Burrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1311-CR-431
Criminal. Affirms 12-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony dealing cocaine.

Katherine Fraze v. Floyd County Health Department, and City of New Albany and Animal Control (NFP)
22A04-1402-CC-62
Collection. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct error in favor of the city limiting the number of dogs Fraze could keep on her property.
 
Anthony Ray Willoughby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-PC-375
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
In re: The Visitation of W.G.R. (Minor Child) M.W.R., Father v. K.G. and D.G., Maternal Grandparents (NFP)
78A01-1312-MI-540
Miscellaneous. Remands order for grandparent visitation for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
 
Chad Thomas Gates v. Shannon Leigh Gates (NFP)
83A05-1401-DR-26
Domestic. Affirms trial court denial of father’s petition to modify custody.
 
Ralph Dennis Gabriel, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1311-CR-585
Criminal. Affirms 14-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Robert Birk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-897
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of a narcotic drug and Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.
 
James Pello v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1312-PC-488
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Walter L. Logan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1311-CR-581
Criminal. Affirms 28-year aggregate sentence of Class C felony reckless homicide and Class B felony possession of cocaine.
 
Tyrone R. McGee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1311-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.
 
Stephan Gallagher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1301-PC-12
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Brandon Scroggin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A04-1306-CR-312
Criminal. Dismisses as untimely Scroggin’s appeal of convictions of Class C felony receiving stolen auto parts, Class D felony counts of arson and intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Diamond Staples v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1403-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Monday. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opnions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT